MASTER 
NEGATIVE 
NO. 91-S0150-11 





MICROFILMED 1991 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 


as part of the 
“Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project” 


Funded by the 
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 


Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
Columbia University Library — 





COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 


The copyright law of the United States -- Title 17, United 
States Code -- concerns the making of photocopies or other 
reproductions of copyrighted material... 


Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 


accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
would involve violation of the copyright law. 





AUTHOR: 


~HEADLAM, WALTER 
GEORGE 


| TITLE: 


RESTORATIONS OF 


MENANDER 


PLACE: 


CAMBRIDGE 


ΙΓ DATE: 


1908 





Master Negative # 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 





Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 





ry ——- 
88M52 


EH 





Headlam, Walter George, 1866-1908. 


Restorations of Menander, by Walter Headlam ... 
Cambridge, Bowes and Bowes, 1908. 


sp. Zo. 


ConTEents.—Prefatory note: Fragments d’un manuscrit de Menandre dé- 
couverts et publiés par M. Gustave Lefebvre ... 1907.—Restorations of 
Menander. 


1. Lefebvre, Gustave. 


.--...».» 


; 10-10326 
14140" 


Library of Congress 


Restrictions on Use: 


TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 


REDUCTION ratio:___ J/g eee 


INITIALS 42. 


INC_ WOODBRIDGE, CT 


FILM SIZE: «35_ 7 
IMAGE PLACEMENT: IA a B I 
DATE FILMED: ayy 
FILMED BY: RESEARCH PUSVICATMONS, 


~~ 





























a ΓΙ 


g VL 
37, WW 
Ac® ΝΙΝ 





Association for Information and Image Management 


1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 


301/587-8202 


Centimeter 
1 τ" om Ἢ 2 τ a 


Inches i [28 2s 


ze 


ue 32 | 22 
ih ie 
Ral ΞΕΞ: 


uD 22 
μ, a 
te 

















Iu 


les 11: 


























“a 
Ad “a 


(] 
. MANUFACTURED TO AIIM STANDARDS a ὃς 


4: 
BY APPLIED IMAGE, INC. 4@\ & 





Ψ 


RESTORATIONS OF 
MENANDER 


BY 


WALTER HEADLAM 


FELLOW OF KING’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE 


CAMBRIDGE 
BOWES AND BOWES 
1908 


Price One Shilling 





Wed Q¥" hy 


ΒΥ, 


| Columbia University : 
| it the City of New York 


Speci 


| Given Atotyntoirs li; | 








RESTORATIONS OF 
MENANDER 


BY 


WALTER HEADLAM 


FELLOW OF KING’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE 


CAMBRIDGE 
BOWES AND BOWES 
1908 





OXFORD: HORACE HART 
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 














PREFATORY NOTE 


Fragments d'un manuscrit de MENANDRE découverts 
et publiés par M. GUSTAVE LEFEBVRE, Inspecteur 


en chef du service des Antiguités de TEgypte. 
Le Caire: Imprimerie de I’Institut Frangais 
@’ Archéologie Ortentale, 1907. 


ALL scholars will offer M. Lefebvre their warm con- 
gratulations on this great discovery. They will include 
M. Maurice Croiset, who has assisted him to edit it, and add 
their compliments to the Press of the French Archaeological 
Institute at Cairo. 

Here, in several large pieces, we regain no less than 1,300 
lines: and if they still deny us the material for estimating 
thoroughly Menander’s management of a comedy throughout, 
at least there are complete scenes,.and one Prologue, which 
together show us well enough his handling of a plot and his 
drawing of character, and display most strikingly his lightness 
and vivacity of style. 

But, as M. Lefebvre recognizes, before we can appreciate 
them fully there is still much restoration to be done; 
many supplements to be made, and not a few corrections, 
Fortunately what remains of the MS. appears to have suffered 
little serious injury ; the lacunae, though numerous, are for 
the most part only small; and many of them probably have 
traces which will make it possible to confirm the right 
conjectures ; so that there is every ground for hoping that 
before long almost the whole will have been restored 





4 PREFATORY NOTE 


intelligibly. M. Lefebvre promises us presently a facsimile, 
and afterwards a second edition which will embody what 
other scholars may contribute. One such contribution I make 
here. 

The work of restoration has been made much easier by 
the editor’s accuracy in marking the number of the letters 
missing. For example, there can be no doubt, I think, about 
the supplements in vv. 419, 420 on P. 173 (below, p. 28); but 
they are rendered possible by the care with which the vacant 
spaces have been noted. 

The scribe has spared us one great source of trouble 
by marking a change of speakers with two vertical dots 
ITAMOCTIC: €YTE: and not infrequently he writes the name 
of the new speaker in the margin. But he is not, of course, 
to be relied upon entirely; sometimes he omits these dots, 
and sometimes put them after the wrong word. One point to 
which I would invite attention is the number of places where 
the words have been transposed. It is a subject which I have 
treated fully in the Classical Review for 1902, p. 436, where 
the present examples will find many parallels. 

The Papyrus is here called P, and the conjectural sup- 
plements are enclosed in square brackets. My own suggestions, 
for convenience, are printed in thick type. 


King’s College, Cambridge, 
Jan. 22, 1908. 








RESTORATIONS OF MENANDER 


P.9. The form TiBeos in vv. 40, 47, though the region is 
given as Τίβειον in Steph. Byz. (Kock Com. Aiz., i. Ὁ. 704), 
is practically new to us. Elsewhere it appears as TiBios, and 
is scanned TiBios by Metrodorus, A. P. xiv. 123. 11. But 
we are enabled now to emend two other fragments of 
Menander: /r. 231 

εὐθυμία βΐ τὸν δοῦλον τρέφει 

Read Τίβειε,. .. The credit is due to Bentley, who 

conjectured τοι, TéBie. And in fr. 330 read 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Τιβείου νῷν ἴσως δεῖ φροντίσαι 

where the false reading τὰ βίου deceived the simple mind of 
Priscian. Bergk had already proposed ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὰ TuiBiov. 
So Proverb. Append. iii. 79 ...rév δὲ Θύμβιν ὁ Mévavdpos 
(frag. 1075) συνεχῶς Τίβιον καλεῖ should evidently have 
been written Té@ecov.—It was an ethnic slave-name: Strabo 
304, 553; Lucian i. 133, 681, ii. 748, ili. 57, 304; Synes. 
Epist. 3, A. P. xiv. 123. 

56 μετὰ τῆς ἐμῆς κεκτημένης ἐργάζεται 

ἔρια διακονεῖ τε 


ΘΡΙΑ P. τὰ θρῖα ed. 


9 κριτὴν τούτου τινὰ 
ζητοῦμεν ἴσον" εἰ δή σε μηδὲν κωλύει, 
διάλυσον ἡμᾶς. 

EIAECE P 


31 τῇ βακτηρίᾳ 
κα]θίξομαί σου 





RESTORATIONS OF 


P. 35 
41 ἐκπρίσων ἐκεῖ 
στελέχη 


EKTTPICCWN P 


The Attic form was πρίω, πρῖσαι: Et. Mag. 688. 11 
ἰστέον ὅτι of ᾿Αθηναῖοι od λέγουσι πρίζω, ἀλλὰ χωρὶς τοῦ 
¢ πρίω, quoting Menander fr. 902; Pollux vii. 114 πρίειν δὲ 
λέγεται τὸ πρίζειν. Therefore πριζόντων in Theages 124 A 
would not have been written by Plato, and in any case we 
should restore πριόντων with Cobet. 


P. 39 
67 τὸ μὲν ἂν οὗτος ἔλα[βεν ἄν, 
τὸ δ᾽ ἐγώ' 


P. 41 
103 ἴσως ἔσθ᾽ οὑτοσὶ 
εν νιν ΗΟ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, καὶ τραφεὶς ἐν ἐργάταις 
ὑπερόψεται ταῦτ᾽" 


M. Lefebvre says that the reading γένν]ης appears to him 
certain, though acknowledging that γενεᾶς would be the 
Attic form. γέννα is found elsewhere written in mistake for 
γενεά, but should we not read γεγονώς or γεγώς ὃ 


P. 43 
129 ἀλλ᾽ ἀπόδος εἰ μή, OHO’, ἀρέσκει 
PHCIN P 


MSS. make both this error and the contrary with equal 
carelessness: there are cases of each to be corrected on 
P. 51 τ. 280, P. 171 v. 388; and see P. 67 », 508, P. 161 
U. 255. 


138 ov γνώσομ᾽ εἶναι, μὰ Ala, σοῦ 
τοῦ νῦν ἀδικοῦντος, τοῦ βοηθοῦντος [δὲ καὶ] 
ἐπεξιόντος τἀδικεῖν μέλλοντί σοι. 


i.e. τῷ ἀδικεῖν μέλλοντί σοι. 














MENANDER 
sii 5 a 
156 Πονηρὸς ἦσθας, ὦ πόνηρ. 
Eustath. 1773. 30 Αἴλιος μέντοι Διονύσιος γράφει ὅτι καὶ τὸ 
οἶσθα καὶ τὸ οἶσθας ἄμφω Ἑλληνικά, καθὰ καὶ ἦσθα καὶ ἦσθας. 
It is a slave speaking. 


P. 
" 174 ΟΝ. [οὗτός ἐστι. CYP. τίς; 


ΟΝ. ὁ δακτύλιος. CYP. ὁ motos; 

‘Here he (“it”) is.’ ‘Who?’ αὐτός ἐστι ed. 

191 ἢ σῷζε τοῦτον ἀσφαλῶς 
NI. . ΠΑΡΕΧωοῶν: 

What would suit the space is ἢ "pol d[6s, αὐτῷ] ἵν᾿ [εὖ] 
παρέχω σῶν. ‘Or give it to me, that I may deliver it safely 
to the master.’ There is the same crasis on P. 41 v. 118 αὐτῷ 
iva κερδάνειε, and it makes no difference where the ictus of 
the verse falls: αὕτη ᾽στὶν τυχόν in v. 268 is quite normal. 


hy 


142 νὴ τὸν Ala τὸν σωτῆρα. πάνθ᾽ εὑρὼν [ἐγὼ 
ἅπαντα περιέσπασμ᾽, ὁ δ᾽ οὐχ εὕρων Al 
ἀϊρεῖ ed. I should expect either ἄγει or ἔχει, which serves 
as the perfect of λαμβάνω, ‘has got.’ For ἄγει compare 
O. C. 832 τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἄγω. Eur. Heracl. 139, 267 ἄξω γε 
μέντοι τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἐγὼ λαβών. In Aesch. S#pp. 929 Porson 
conjectured τἄμ᾽ ὀλωλόθ᾽ εὑρίσκων ἄγω : cf. Lon 533-5: 


150 αἰσχ]ρά ¥ ἃ πέπονθα 


P. 47 »»." 
208 μή p ἕλῃ ϑιαλλαγίεὶς 


~ , ~ >| 
πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τὸν φράσαντα ταῦϊτα Kat 
διαλλαγ[ὴν ed. 


P. 49 ἑ 
221 τὸ τῆς θεοῦ φέρειν 


κανοῦν ἔμοιγ᾽ οἷόν τε νῦν ἐστ', ὦ τάλαν. 
ἁγνὴ γάμων γάρ, φασίν, 
Diogenian. ii. 46 ᾿Αγνὴ γάμων : ἐπὶ τῶν σωφρόνων γυναικῶν 
“Ὅμοιον, Τὸ κανοῦν (τὸ) τῆς θεοῦ φέρει. 





RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 51 
257 εἰς τὰς γυναῖκας παννυχιζούσας μόνος 
ἐνέϊπαισε (?)* κἀμο]ῦ γὰρ παρούσης ἐγένετο 
τοιοῦτον ἕτερον. ΟΝ. σοῦ παρούσης ; ΑΒ. περυσιναι 
Ταυροποῖίλι .. .] AIC .. ΓΑΡΕΨΑΛΛΟΝ κόραις, 
αὐτί] θ᾽ [ὁμοῦ συἹνέπαιζον" οὐδ᾽ ἐγὼ τότε--- 
οὔπω γὰρ dvdp’ ἤδειν τί ἐστί καὶ μάλα 
μὰ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην. 


κἀμοῦ is necessary: the rest is difficult at present, and 
my suggestions are only tentative: but I suspect that οὐδ᾽ 
ἐγώ should be οὐδέπω. Then καὶ μάλα is a positive assurance 
or assent, and cannot be combined with οὔπω or with μὰ τὴν 
᾿Αφροδίτην, which is only negative: I suppose it is Onesimus 
who interjects καὶ μάλα: ‘Oh yes!’ Abrotonon protesting 
‘No, I swear!’ 


263 Τὴν δὲ παῖδία γ᾽) ἥτις ἦν 
ola bas ; 


270 εἶτ᾽ ἐξαπίνης κλάουσα προστρέχει μόνη, 
τίλλουσ' ἑαυτῆς τὰς τρίχας, καλὸν πάνυ 
καὶ λεπτόν, ὦ θεοί, ταραντῖνον σφόδρα 
ἀπολωλεκίυϊ᾽]" ὅλον γὰρ ἐγεγόνει ῥάκος. 


ἀπολωλέκει" ed. The sentence admits ἀπολωλέκειν" but 
the participle seems to suit the space. 


‘If you take my advice, 
277 τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην 
φανερὸν ποήσεις" εἰ γάρ ἐστ᾽ ἐλευθέρα, 


; ni a ᾿ ΓΕ 
παιδός τι τοῦτον λανθάνειν δεῖ ΤΟΟΥΪ 


Read : 
εἰ γάρ ἐστ᾽ ἐλευθέρας 
παιδός͵ τί τοῦτον λανθάνειν δεῖ τὰ γεγονός ; 


‘For if it belongs to a free girl, why should what has 
happened be concealed from him?’ τὸ γεγονός as P. 11 5 uv. 78, 








MENANDER 


P, 51 
P. 155 Ὁ. 136 τὸ γεγονὸς κρῦπτε, P. 157 Ὁ. 192, P. 159 Ὁ. 221, 
P. 163 v. 257. Alciphron iii. 63 ‘the master εἴσεται τὸ 
γεγονός. The CY is perhaps the result of a gloss συμβεβηκός. 


280 πρότερον ἐκείνην ἥτις ἐστίν, ᾿Αβρότονον, 
εὕρωμεν" ΕΠΙΤΟΥΤΩΔ᾿ ΕΔΛΟΙΟΥΝΥΝ. EA[ 
€CT’ P 
This seems to have been ἐμοὶ σύ or ἐμοὶ συν : by mistake 
for ἐμοὶ viv σύν[θ]ελίε ἢ or συγγενοῦν 


P. 53 294 τί οὖν ποιήσει τις ; 
I think we need ποιήσῃ. 


300 φήσω Ταυροπολίοις παρθένος 
ἔτ᾽ οὖσα --- τἀκείνῃ γενόμενα πάντ᾽ ἐμὰ 
ποουμένη ---τὰ πλεῖστα δ᾽ αὐτῶν οἶδ᾽ ἐγώ. 
ET OYCATOT’EKEINH P 
τά is necessary. Metre admits τά γ᾽ ἐκείνῃ, but I think 

TAEKEINH better. Scribes were very apt to fill what looked 
like an hiatus by inserting γ᾽ or 7’ or δ᾽: e.g. P. 153 v. 119 
TON®ANENTAA’ AYTW for φανένθ᾽ αὑτῷ (corrected by the 
editor), Menand. /y. 630, Eur. 1. A. 439, Cobet WV. L. 60. 


309 
Τὰ κοινὰ ταυτὶ δ᾽ ἀκκιοῦμαι τῷ λόγῳ, 


τοῦ μὴ διαμαρτεῖν" “as δ᾽ ἀναιδὴς ἦσθα καὶ 
ἰταμός tis!” ΟΝ. εὖγε. ABP. ““κατέβαλες δέ μ᾽ ὡς σφόδρα ᾿᾽" 
“ἱμάτια δ᾽ οἷ ἀπώλεσ᾽ ἡ τάλαιν᾽ eyo!” 
φήσω. 
U)COANAIAHC Ρ 


316 ABP. τὸ πέρας δὲ πάντων, “ παιδίον τοίνυν," ἐρῶ, 
“ ἔσ]τι γεγονός σοι" 
. ΠΗΓΕΓΟΝΟΟΟΟΙ P is said to have, 
and M. Lefebvre reads ἤδη γεγονός, but with ἤδη we should 
have had γέγονέν σοι. 








10 RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 55 
325 ᾿Αλλ᾽ [οὐ] χάρις tis, ᾿Αβρότονον͵ τούτων ἐμοί; 
ABP. Νὴ τὼ θεώ, πάντων γ᾽ ἐμαυτῇ σ᾽ αἴτιον 
ἡγήσομαι τούτων. 
ΠΑΝΤΟΩΝΓ᾽ ΕΛΛΑΥΤΗΟΑΙΤΙΟΝ 
HTHCOMAITOYT@NC’ Ρ 


Having mistaken EMAYTH C’ for EMAYTHC, the scribe in- 
serted the necessary C’ after τούτων. 


333 OYKOYNCYM..€... MOI: 
to which Onesimus replies 


συναρέσκει διαφόρως" 
ἂν γὰρ κακοηθεύσῃ, μαχοῦμαί σοι τότε. 


Perhaps μετέχεις μοι or μεθέξεις μοι. 


338 φίλη Πειθοῖ, παροῦσα σύμμαχος, 
ε. εἰ κατορθοῦν τοὺς λόγους ods ἂν λέγω. 

M. Lefebvre reads ἐκεῖ κατορθοῦν, taking κατορθοῦν to be 
used as an imperative. I do not feel quite satisfied with this 
use of the infinitive in a prayer; I think she would have said 
ἐκεῖ κατόρθου, and a scribe might take this for ἔχει κατορθοῦν. 


340 τό γ᾽ ἀστικόν! τὸ γύναιον ὡς EPTIEO’ ὅτι 
κατὰ τὸν ἔρωτ᾽ οὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἐλευθερίας τυχεῖν, 
ἄλλως δ᾽ ἀλύει, τὴν ἑτέραν πορεύεται 
ὁδόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ τὸν πάντα δουλεύσω χρόνον, 
λέμφος, ἀπόπληκτος, οὐδαμῶς προνοητικός. 
Μ. Lefebvre reads: 
τό γ᾽ ἀστικὸν τὸ γύναιον ὡς ἕρπεθ᾽: ὅτι (δὴ) 
but rhythm will not permit that; nor will the construction. 
The sentence requires ὡς to mean ‘ when she found that it is 
impossible’: ‘ The smartness of it! When the woman found 
that she was unable to obtain her freedom in the way of love, 
but was hopelessly baffled, thereupon she takes the other road.’ 


The verb should be something like ὡς ἐνόησε ὅτι or ὡς 
ἐπέπεισθ᾽ ὅτι. 











MENANDER 
Fs 39 ΔΑ 
369 γύναι, πόθεν ἔχεις, εἰπέ μοι, TON...... 
λαβοῦσ᾽; 
I suppose that P wrote ΤΟΝΠΑΙΔΙΟΝ in error for τὸ παιδίον, 
and that AA was meant to suggest τὸν maida as a correction. 
Cf. 371-2. | 


P. 59 
382 ἵνα καὶ τά Ὑ ἄλλα πάντα μου πύθῃ σαφῶς 


INAKAITAAAA ᾿ 
394 ἀνέκραγε, τὴν κεφαλήν θ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἐπάταξε σφόδρα 
αὑτοῦ. 
τὴν κεφαλήν τ᾽ ἂν ἐπάταξε ed. with P. Τ᾽ AM was mistaken 
for Τ᾽ ΑΝ. 
P. 61 
431 ov γάρ ἐσΐτι δὴ 
ἑταιρίδιον τοῦτ᾽, οὐδὲ τὸ τυχί[όν, 
ΥἹΟΥΔΗΔΕΚΑΙ παιδάριον 
EAEYOEPOCAA=: μὴ βλεπ 
καὶ πρῶτον αὐτὸν κατὰ μόνίας (Kock ii. 364.) 


433 υἱοῦ δὲ δή) or υἱοῦ δὲ cai? or was it ἀλλὰ ... .. υἱοῦ 
δίκαιον παιδάριον ὃ (Soph. Aj. 547, frag. 1013). 
434 ΔΑΞ is mysterious: can it be πάξ᾽ 
440 ABP. τῆς γαμετῆς γυναικός ἐστί σου 
τὸ παιδίον, οὐκ ἀλλότριον. ΧΑΡ. εἰ γὰρ ὥφελεν. 
ΑΒΡ, νὴ τὴν] φίλην Δήμητρα. 
2 se ee Φ. THNAHMHTPA P according to 
M. Lefebvre; but this asseveration was in such common use 
that probably it will appear to have been ΦΙΛΗΝ. 


P. 63 
450 Punctuate: 
νουθετήσεις Kal σύ με; 


προπετῶς ἀπάγω τὴν θυγατέρ᾽, ἱερόσυλε ypad ; 

ἀλλὰ περιμείνω καταφαγεῖν τὴν προῖκά μου 

τὸν χρηστὸν αὐτῆς ἄνδρα, καὶ λόγους λέγω 

περὶ τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ; ταῦτα συμπείθεις ἐμέ; 
πΠεριλενὼ r 











12 RESTORATIONS OF 

P. 63 

ἀπάγω is present indicative, περιμείνω (which is required by 
metre) the deliberative subjunctive: ‘Am 7 precipitate in 
taking my daughter away? Why,amT to wait and to 
make a speech in defence, about what is my own?’ Dem. 
1324. 4 ἐὰν... μὴ ἐᾶτε λόγους λέγειν, Eur. Med. 321 μὴ λόγους 
λέγε, Ar. Ach. 299, 302. 

455 Punctuate: 

κρίνομαι πρὸς (ωφρόνην ; 
μετάπεισον αὐτήν, ὅταν ἴδῃς" οὕτω τί μοι 
ἀγαθὸν γένοιτο, ( ὠφρόνη, γάρ, οἰκαδὶ 
ἀπιών ---- τὸ τέλμ' εἶδες παριοῦσ᾽ ---- ἐνταῦθά σε 
τὴν νύκτα βαπτίζων ὅλην ἀποκτενῶ 
Κ. ΓώΟΟΙ radr ἐμοὶ φρονεῖν ἀναγκάσω 
καὶ μὴ στασιάζειν. 

M. Lefebvre reads κίἀϊγώ σοι ταῦτ’, but neither σοι nor κἀγώ 
can in fact be right: the pronoun (though it need not be 
repeated here) should be σε, and κἀγώ would mean ‘and 
I will add something to what will be done by another person’. 
CO! suggests ἔσθι, which was so often said in menaces: e.g. 
καί σε, ἴσθι, or a crasis with some word in -w, as κάτω, ἴσθι, 
or χοὔτω, ἴσθι. 

P. 65 

479 ἑκάστῳ τὸν τρόπον συνίήρμοσαν 
φρούραρχον" οὗτος ἔνδον ἕτερον μὲν κακῶς 
ἐπέτριψεν, ἂν αὐτῷ κακῶς χρῆϊσθαι θέλῃ, 
ἕτερον δ᾽ ἔσωσεν. 

οὐ xpyTar... 
488 ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαγαγεῖν σαυτοῦ παρ᾽ ἀνδρὸς θυγατέρα 
παρ᾽ ἀνδρὸς σαυτοῦ θυγατέρα ed. with P: simplex ordo. 

493 Punctuate: 

καὶ νῦν μὲν 


τῶν κακῶν" 


αὖθις δ᾽ ὅπως μὴ λήψομαί σε, ( μικρίνη, 
᾿προπετῆῇ, λέγω σοι. 
Anaxandrides fr. 56 χαλεπή, λέγω σοι, καὶ προσάντης. 








»}} 





MENANDER 
P. 65 
503 CM. οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι λέγεις. ΟΝ. ἡ γραῦς δέ γε 
οἶδ᾽, ὡς ἐγῷμαι. 
(as P. 151 v. 83) G)CETWMO! P 


P. 67 
507 νυνὶ δ᾽ ἀναγνωρισμὸς αὐτοῖς γέγονε καὶ 
ἅπαντα τἀγαθά. CM. τί φησίν, ἱερόσυλε γραῦ; 
νῦν δ᾽ ed. with P. In 508 we can make metre with ἅπαντ᾽ 
ἀγαθά : but it may be worth considering whether it was not 


ἅπαντα τἀγάθ᾽. “Ἱερόσυλε γραῦ, τί φής; 


513 σὺ γὰρ σφόδρ᾽ οἷσθ᾽ 6 τι 
οὗτο]ς λέγει νῦν. Olga (y+ GAN] εὖ ἴσθ᾽ ὅτι 
ἔπαριστέρως συνῆκε. 
For the omission in 514 see P. 51 v. 263, P. 54 Ὁ. 304, 
where the editor restores τὸ πρᾶγμ(ά y’), P. 59 v. 382. 


515 .... CAP. CTEPACYNHKE P 


516 εὐτύχημα μεῖζον οὐδὲ ἕν, 
εἰ τοῦ]τ᾽ ἀληθές ἐσθ᾽ ὃ λέγεις. 


P, 111 
24 ταύτην, BEBAIONO’ OYOENWIKATEAEITIETO 
Read either βέβαιον δ᾽ οὐδέν or βέβαιον δ᾽ ᾧ κατελείπετ᾽ 
οὐδὲ ἕν. 
P. 113 
31 ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου δ᾽ ὀφθεῖσ᾽ ὑπὸ τού(τουν, θρασυτέρου, 
ὥσπερ προείρηκ᾽, ὄντος, ἐπιμελῶς τ᾽ ἀεὶ 
φοι]τῶντος ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν, 


τοῦ θρασυτέρου ed. with P. 


42 πάντα δ᾽ ἐξεκάετο 
ταῦθ᾽ ἕνεκα τοῦ μέλλοντος, εἰς ὀργήν θ᾽ ἵνα 
οὗτος ἀφίκοιτ᾽ - ἐγὼ γὰρ ἦγον οὐ φύσει 


or ἀφίκητ᾽" ΟΥ̓ΤΟΟΘΑΦΙΚΕΤ᾽ P. οὗτος (ἐσ)αφίκετ᾽ ed. 





14 RESTORATIONS OF 


Ρ. ᾿ 15 ᾽ « ~ 
46 τούς θ᾽ αὑτῶν ποτε 


ΤΟΥΟΘ᾽ EAYTWN P 
λάβῃ in 45 may be a mistake for λάβοι, but is not neces- 


sary; cf. P. 57 v. 373- 
50 γιγνόμενον tla solet fier: as in the Γεωργός (Nicole) v. 6, 
A. P. v. 41, Alexis 62. 1, 76, Marc. Ant. vi. 40 γίνεται γάρ. 
86 ὥσθ᾽ ὃ μὲν νυνὶ ποεῖς 
ἀπόπληκτόν ἐστι. ποῖ φέρει γάρ; ἣ τίνα 
ἄξων ; ἑαυτῆς ἐστ᾽ ἐκείνη κυρία 
P wrongly marks a change of speaker, 
ATIOTIAHKTONECTI: TIOYSEPEITAP: HTINA 


so M. Lefebvre reads: 
ἔρρωσθ᾽ εὐμενεῖς γεγενημένοι 
ἡμῖν θεαταί, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ σῴζετε. 
I think this would imply ἐπεὶ τὰ πρότερα ἀπωλέσατε. 
MS. has f€r€NOMENO! and I would rather read : 
ἔρρωσθ᾽, εὐμενεῖς τε γενόμενοι 
ἡμῖν, θεαταί, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ σῴζετε. 
etiam quae sequuntur. 


62 Accent and punctuate: 

ἡ Δωρὶς ofa γέγονεν, ὡς δ᾽ ἐρρωμένη ! 
ζῶσιν τρόπον tw’, ὡς ἐμοὶ καταφαίνεται, 
αὗται. 

This use of ζῶσιν explains a phrase in Antiphanes 217. 8 
λέγεις μάγειρον ζῶντα ! which Kock took as a question, ‘ tam 
egregium coquum negat usquam inter vivos reperiri posse’ ; 
but it means coguum vivacem praedicas | 


P. ΤΙ 


80 M. Lefebvre gives : 
ΠΟΛ. μὴ Boa: 


τίς ἔσθ᾽ ὁ δα... .. τίς; αὐτή, ΠΑΤ. πάνυ καλῶς" 
ἤρεσκες αὐτῇ τάχα...... ς, νῦν δ᾽ οὐκέτι. 

ἀπελήλυθ᾽ οὐ κατὰ τρόπον σου χρωμένου 

αὐτῇ. ΠΟΛ. τί φῇς ; οὐ κατὰ τρόπον ; 








MENANDER 15 


P. 115 

On v. 82 M. Lefebvre says (P. 134): ‘On pourrait lire πάρος, 
si les traces de lettres s’y prétaient.’ Do they not? If it was 
not πάρος, then it must be τέως. 


In 83 ἀπελήλυθ᾽ (οὖν) would heal the metre, but I should 
prefer οὐζχὶ) κατὰ rpémov.—For v. 81 I conjecture 


tis ἔσθ᾽ ὁ δίακρύων ; Ὅσ]τις ; αὐτή. Πάνυ καλῶς. 
Or ὁ κλάων. Pol. ‘Who is that crying?’ Pat. ‘Who? 
the mistress.’ Pol. ‘ Excellent!’ Cf. v. 67: 
ὦ κεκτημένη, 
ὡς ἄδικα πάσχεις! παῖδες, εὐφρανθήσεται 
κλάουσαν αὐτὴν πυθόμενος νῦν, τοῦτο γὰρ 
ἐβούλετ᾽ αὐτός. 
So I would punctuate it: the MS. gives GCAAIKATIACXEIC 
ΠΑΙΔΕΟ : For ὅστις see below, P. 151 v. 80. 


F. 419 

107 ΠΟΛ. τὸν κόσμον αὐτῆς εἰ θεωρήσαις [ov. IAT. mas] 
ἔχει; ΠΟΛ, θεώρησον, Πάταικε, πρόϊσιθι, καὶ 
μᾶλλόν μ᾽ ἐλεήσεις. 


[ov ; Π. πῶς] is supplied by M. Lefebvre, and must be right— 
if the MS. is right in marking another speaker after ἔχει, which 
I greatly doubt. I take the true reading to be 


τὸν κόσμον αὐτῆς εἰ θεωρήσαις (γ) [ὅπως 
Ν᾿ » ΞΔ 
ἔχει. θεώρησον, Πάταικε, 


Pataecus looks at the articles, and cries : 
OOTTAP[ 
ENAYMAO”’ Oi’ OIAA’ ESAINEOHNIK’A, 
AABHTITOYT@NOYFAPEWPAKENETT 
This is at first sight a puzzling corruption: but I will give 
at once the reading which is to my mind certain : 
ἐνδύμαθ᾽ οἷ᾽ ἐφαίνεθ᾽, οἷα δ᾽, ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν 
λάβῃ τι τούτων ! οὐ γὰρ ἑόρακέν γέ πω 
i.e. of ἐφαίνεθ᾽, οἷα δὲ (φανεῖται), ἡνίκ᾽ ἄν, ‘how beautiful 
they looked, and what they will look like when she gets them !— 





16 RESTORATIONS OF 


P. £27 
for she has not seen them yet > (Soph. O. T. 105 ἔξοιδ᾽ ἀκούων, 


οὐ γὰρ εἰσεῖδόν γέ πω). The scribe, not having attended to 
the sense, took ola, ofa dé for a mere repetition, and preferred 
to bring the words together. So in Eur. H. F. 135 the MS. 
gives οἵους οἵους ὀλέσασα τούσδ᾽ ἀποστερήσῃ, just as in Lec. 
1042 the MSS. give τάλαιναι τάλαιναι κόραι Φρυγῶν : and 
on P. 159 v. 203 there is another very similar example to 


be corrected. 

213 ἀλλὰ τί φέρω νῦν εἰς μέσον 

τὸ μέγεθος, ἐμβρόντητος, ὑπὲρ ἄλλων λαλῶν ; 

ΠΑΤ. μὰ τὸν Af οὐδ᾽ ἕν. ΠΟΛ. οὐ γὰρ ἀλλὰ δεῖ, Πάταικέ, σε 
ἰδεῖν. βάδιζε δεῦρο. ΠΑΤ. παρά σ᾽ εἰσέρχομαι. 

114 AAA Ρ, which at the end of a line often writes ὦ 
for WN. In 115 M. Croiset proposes to eject Πάταικε, 
reading Ma τὸν Δί᾽, οὐδ᾽ ἕν. Οὐ γάρ; ἀλλὰ δεῖ σε νῦν. 
I think οὐ γάρ; is the right way to punctuate ; οὐ yap ἀλλὰ 
‘for the fact is’ does not cohere with what precedes. But 


probably we should merely eject οὐδ᾽ ἕν. 
Since he says εἰσέρχομαι, it is evident 
Polemon into the house; and thereupon in 117 some one 
inside the house exclaims, according to the MS.: 
οὐκ εἰσφθερεῖσθε θᾶττον ὑμεῖς ἐκποδών ; 
λόγχας ἔχοντες ἐκπεπηδήκασί pot 
Plainly we must read οὐκ ἐκφθερεῖσθε and εἰσπεπτηδήκασί 


that he follows 


μοι. 
The speaker then continues : 


119 οὐκ ἂν δύναιντο δ᾽ ἂν ἐξελεῖν νεοττιὰν 
χελιδόνων, οἷοι πάρεισ᾽ οἱ βάσκανοι. 

The δέ is needed, and we could restore metre by omitting 
the second ἄν: but I am strongly inclined to think that we 
have here a case of transposition, and that the original was: 

νεοττιὰν δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν δύναιντ᾽ ἂν ἐξελεῖν 


That is a more forcible way of saying οὐδ᾽ ἂν νεοττιὰν 
δύναιντ᾽ ἄν, and in Greek is probably not so familiar a form of 





MENANDER 17 
P. 117 


phrasing that it will be superfluous to illustrate. In Latin 
if I am not mistaken, it was the normal form—unum “" 
rather than xe unum quidem; but in Greek εἷς οὐκ is rare 
and phrases of that form are only colloquial, with exclamator 
emphasis and a tone of racy vehemence. Compare vi 
normal form Athenaeus 118 F ὧν οὐδ᾽ dv μαινόμενος κύων 
μη ἄν ποτε with Antip. Thess. A. P. xi. 327 αἰπόλος ἧ 
μεθύων οὐκ ἄν ποτε, φασί, συνῴκει. The following are most 
of i examples: Aesch. P.V. 1011 εἴης φορητὸς οὐκ ἄν, εἰ 
πράσσοις Καλῶς, 1015 σὲ γὰρ προσηύδων οὐκ ἄν ἐπ ἂν 
προσεῖπον, διελέχθην). Soph. Ant. 1170 τἄλλ᾽ ἐγὼ καπνοῦ 
σκιᾶς οὐκ ἂν πριαίμην, Aj. 1144 ᾧ φθέγμ᾽ ἂν οὐκ ἂν ηὗρες 
σὴν Hartung, cf. Ο. 7. 556). Antiphanes 7/7. 55. 19 σφενδόνῃ 
a ἂν ἐφικοίμην αὐτόσε. Nicostratus fr. 5 dv οὐκ ἂν desea 
φάγοιμεν ἡμερῶν τριῶν ἂν ἐσθίοντες. Alexis 15. 2 χαλκοῦ 
μέρος δωδέκατον οὐκ ἂν ἀπολάβοις, and 267.3. Herodas vii. 81 
Χαλκοῦ ῥίνημ᾽ ὃ δή Kor’ ἐστὶ τῆς ᾿Αθηναίης ὠνευμένης αὐτῆς ἂν 
οὐκ ἀποστάξαι (Ξε οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἂν), ii. go ΛΛίνως οὐκ ἂν δικάζων 
βώτων διήτησεν, vi. 36 Νοσσίδι χρῆσθαι ἕν᾽ οὐκ ἂν ὅστις 
Aeupts ἐστι mpoodoinv, and 69, viii. 12 Bards οὐχ (= οὐδὲ 
Raids) ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ οἰκίῃ ᾽στὶ μαλλός. Diphilus 91 παρ᾽ ἧς 
τὸν Apres ἡ κύων οὐ λαμβάνει. Menand. fr. 65. 8 οὗ τῶν 
μην οὐκ ἀπόλλυται τρία (Ξε οὐδὲ τρία), 532. 9 ὃ πέντε 
μῶν ἔνδον οὐ γενήσεται. Nausicrat. fr. 3. 4 οὗ δασύποδ᾽ 
mesic " οὐχὶ padiov. Strato Com. 1. 46 τὸν δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν 
ταχὺ ἔπεισεν ἡ Πειθώ, ne Suada quidem (which Kock iii 
Ρ. 362, is wrong in altering to οὐδ᾽ ἄν). | 

With this passage compare Lucian iii. 304: see below on 
P. 173 v. 473. The detail of the mrwxadagay στρατιώτης 


multiplying hi i i 
a μὴ g his one slave is excellently illustrated by Athenaeus 


FP; 31 ἐποί. 
9 129 Punctuate ἐποίουν' οὐδέ ‘ not even’. 


141 αὐτὸς ἐμελέτων λόγον 
al" rail . 
ἐμὲ λέγων ed. with P. 
B 





RESTORATIONS OF 


éyvjaxas εἰὖ 
κομιδῇ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Τί βούλει ; Φιλτάτη, 
διὰ σοῦ γενέσθω τοῦτο M.... ΡΑΧΟ... CETAI 
τοῦτό (γε) γέλοιον. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἐχρῆν 
ὁρᾶν] σ΄. ᾿Εγῷδά γ᾽" ἀλλ᾽ ἄρισθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχεις. 
Pataecus is imploring Glycera to plead with the master for 


his freedom. 


4st WKACC P. τὴ Mshould be ΜΟΙ: and then Glycera 
replies ‘He will . . . . That's ridiculous’. I do not see what 


the verb can be except παραχρήσεται, but it is not convincing. 


149 P gives 
.... C's EFWAATAM’ APICT’: OYTWCEXEIC ΠΆΤ, 


making a wrong division of the speakers. ‘ Yes, / know, says 
Glycera, ‘but you are excellently well off as you are” Cf. 


above, on P. 67 v. 514. 


P. 121 
158 TAT. .... τί κλ]αίεις, ἀθλία ; 


or rather κλάεις. P gives 
JBIEICABAIA: TIETTONOATI IAT, 
168 ἀφρόνως ἔχειν ἔχθραν τε πραίόνως φέρειν 
P. 14) v. 25. Punctuate: 
ἐμέ τ᾽ οὐδὲν cidvi’ ἔνδον ὄντ᾽, ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ 
εἶναι νομίσασα τοῦ λαλεῖν, προσέρχεται 


See Stephanus, 7hesaur. 5.ν. ἀσφαλής, p. 2310 Β. 


41 “ἔνδον ἐστὶν αὐτός ;" ‘Is the master in?’ 43 “αὐτὴ 
καλεῖ, πἴτθη, σε." ‘The mistress is calling you, nurse.’ 


P. 149 
52 ὥσθ᾽ ὅτι μὲν αὐτῆς ἐστι τοῦτο 


ἐστι τοῦτο αὐτῆς ed. with P. 
yo κατακόπτειν ‘to bore’ is a stock witticism to a cook ; see 


Kock ii. 362, iii. 296, 312, 315, 317- 








MENANDER 
P. 151 
γι ἰδιῶτ, Ἐγώ; Aoxeis γέ μίοι, νὴ τοὺς θεο)ύς 
or γ᾽ ἐμοί: as frag. 195. 
81 Ἐμέ τις καλεῖ; Ναὶ (ναῦχι. 


83 Τοῦτον μὲν οὐἸδέν, ὡς ἐγῷμαι, λανθάνει ; 
Τὸ [πᾶν γ᾽ ὁρᾷ π]ραττόμενον ἔργον" ἔστι γὰρ 
περίεργος, εἴ τις ἄλλος. 

i τὸ νῦν γ᾽ ὁρᾷ. Cf. Menand. fr. 849 φιλῶ σ᾽, Ὀνήσιμε, 
καὶ σὺ περίεργος εἶ, with fr. 850 οὐδὲν γλυκύτερον ἢἣ πάντ᾽ 
εἰδέναι: where (since καί and ὡς were so readily confused) 
I would read φιλῶ σ᾽, Ὀνήσιμ᾽, ὡς od περίεργός (ris) εἶ: 
cf. Heracleides Com. ii. p. 454 Kock ὡς γενναῖος ἦν, Aesch. 
Pers. 774, Eur. J. T. 1154.—See Themistius 262 C-D. 


88 τί δεῖ ποιεῖν, 
δέσποτα ; ΔΗ. τί δεῖ ποιεῖν ; 

It is a question whether Demeas exclaims ὅ τι δεῖ ποιεῖν ; 
This is not ivariable (Antiphanes 20, Anaxandrides I); 
but consider, with the MS. readings, Menander /*. 530. 16, 
above P. 115 v. 81, Crobylus 5 (iii. p. 380), Mnesimachus 3 
(ii. p. 436), Antiphanes 203. 8, and Cobet WV. Z. 16. In 
Lucian iii. 303 read ὅστις ; (for ὅτι) Πολέμων ὁ Οτειριεύς. 

94 Ἐγώ; should come at the end of 93, as in v. 100, and 
then v. 94 begins: 

μὰ τὸν Διόνυσον, μὰ τὸν ᾿Απ[όλλω, τουτονί, 
μὰ τὸν Διὰ τὸν σωτῆρα, μὰ τὸν ᾿Ασκληπιόν 
or μὰ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω, ᾽γὼ μὲν οὔ, see below, P. 171 v. 409. 


P. 153 
97 ΠΑΡ. ἢ μή mor’ dp’— ‘ Or else may I never —’ 


ror C¥, νὴ] Δί᾽, ἀκριβῶς or εὖ off’. 
T10 ὦ πόλισμα Κεκροπίας χθονός, 
ὦ ταναὸς αἰθήρ, ὦ ---τί, Δημέα, βοᾷς ; 
115 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἣ βουλόμενος [ἢ ᾽ναγκασμέν]ος 
ἔρωτι 
or 7) βεβιασμένος 











20 RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 153 


125 lev αὐτόν που μεθύοντα δηλαδὴ 
κοὐκ ὄν)τ᾽ ἐν ἑαυτοῦ" πολλὰ δ᾽ (ἐξγεργάζεται 
τοιαῦτ᾽ ἄκρατος 


P. 155 
145 Parmeno rushes into the house and leaves the cook 
exclaiming 
Ἡράκλεις, τί τοῦτο, παῖ; 
μαινόμενος εἰσδεδράμηκεν εἴσω TICTEPWN 
ἣ τί τὸ κακόν ποτ᾽ ἐστί; τί δέ μοι ΤΟΥΤΟΠΟΙ 


M. Lefebvre reads τίς γέρων ; ‘ Quel est donc ce vieillard ?’ 
tis ὁ γέρων would give that meaning, or τί ὁ γέρων would be 
‘What is the old man doing?’ But Parmeno is surely not an 
old man? It seems to me that it should be some participle : 
cf. P. 114 v. 87 ποῖ φέρει γάρ; ἣ τίν᾽ ἄξων ; P. 165 v. 113 
εἴσιθ᾽ εἴσω. Τί ποιήσων; But what participle? Neither 
τί ἐγερῶν nor τί σπερῶν is likely : what remains is TITOTEPWN 
τί πότ᾽ ἐρῶν; 

Then he should say τί δέ μοι (or δ᾽ ἐμοὶ) τοῦθ᾽, ὅποι ; “ But 
what is it to me where (he has gone ?)’ 


159 Ὅτι τοῦτ᾽ ἀνειλόμην, διὰ τοῦτοκΚΑΝΤΙΚΑΙ : 
Διὰ τοῦτο. τοιοῦτ᾽ ἦν (τι) τὸ κακόν, μανθάνω. 


I cannot see what verb 159 can have concluded with, and 
can only suggest διὰ τοῦθ᾽ ἱμάντι Kal—, the sentence being 
interrupted. ἱμάς is the strap with which masters threaten to 
flog their slaves, v. 106, P. 165 v. 317, fr. 564, Antiphanes 
fr. 74-7. Inv. τοῦ Demeas has already called for an ἱμάντα 
to flog Parmenon with, and with this I suppose he is now 
threatening Chrysis: v. 157 Παύσω σ᾽ ἐγώ, ὡς οἴομαι--- 


P. 269 


172 Οὔπω δάκνει is sound; τὸ ὄνειδος δηλονότι. 





MENANDER 


F. 157 
175 μέγα πρᾶγμα as Eubulus 116. 10, Alexis 179. 


177 αἱ κατὰ σέ, Χρυσί, πραττόμεναι δραχμὰς δέκα 
μόνας ἑτέραι τρέχουσιν ἐπὶ τὰ δεῖπνα καὶ 
πίνουσ᾽ ἄκρατον ἄχρι ἂν ἀποθάνωσιν, ἣ 

“ “Δ ε ’ Ἁ Ἅ 
πεινῶσιν ἂν μὴ τοῦθ᾽ ἑτοίμως καὶ ταχὺ 
ποῶσιν" 


ΕΤΑΙΡΑΙ P, a common confusion. He is cruelly classing 
her among ¢he rest of the common sort. AXPICAN P: ἄχρι 


+H: 
is the Attic form. ATTOPANWCINKAI P. The v. 2. # is better 
Greek, ‘ Or starve if they can’t get it’: Anaxandrides 33. 8. 


183 ἕσταθι. Τάλαινα τῆς ἐμῆς τύχης ἐγώ 
τάλαιν᾽ ἐγὼ τῆς ἐμῆς τύχης ed. with P. 


190 Punctuate : 
ἀλλ᾽, Ἡράκλεις, τί τοῦτο; πρόσθε τῆς θύρας 
ἕστηκε Χρυσὶς ἥδε κλάουσ᾽ ; οὐ μὲν οὖν 
ἄλλη. τί ποτε τὸ γεγονός ; 
ΤΙΠΟΤΕΟΤΙΤΟΓΕΓΟΝΟΟ =P, ἐστι having been 
inserted, as e.g. in frag. 669.—Alexis 270. 5, Lucian i. 169. 


P. 159 
202 τὸ δεῖνα μικρόν, ὦ τάν, οἴχεται 
᾽ 
πάντα τὰ πράγματ᾽, ἀνατέτραπται, τέλος ἔχει. Νὴ Δία 


The second line is doubly unmetrical, for not only is a 
syllable wanting after ἔχει, but there is a dactyl for a trochee 
at the beginning, which is not permissible. It is merely 
a case of transposition ; the scribe wrongly brought πάντα 
Ta πράγματα together; see above, P. 117 v. 110. Read 


οἴχεται 
πάντα, τέλος ἔχει τὰ πράγματ᾽, ἀνατέτραπται. 


I do not see what μικρόν can mean unless punctuated 
μικρόν, ὦ τάν ; ‘a small thing!” Otherwise μιαρόν. 





22 RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 161 


238 κάτεχε δὴ σεαυτόν. ἀδικεῖς, Anpéa, pe 
CAYTON P 


242 ἔστι δ᾽ ov τοιοῦτον. ἀλλὰ TIEPITIATH ... ENOAAIMIKPO 
per ἐμοῦ. Περιπατήσω. KAICEA 


Unless this is corrupted by a gloss, the metre calls for 243 
to begin μικρὰ per’ ἐμοῦ. But the nearest parallels I can 
find are Sosipater iii. p. 34 Kock ἐν ὅσῳ προσέρχετ᾽ ἐξ 
ἀγορᾶς ὁ mais,| μικρὰ διακινήσω σε περὶ τοῦ πράγματος. 
Alciphron i. 34 μικρὰ κραιπαλήσωμεν, iii. 5 μικρὰ προσ- 
maigas.—Then Demeas continues: καὶ σεα[ζυτὸν ἀνάλαβε: 
see Stephanus 7hesaur. ἀναλαμβάνω p. 431 c. 


> > / ᾽ 3 
244 οὐκ ἀκήκοας, εἰπέ μοι, λεγόντων 
τῶν τραγῳδῶν ὡς γενόμενος ὁ Ζ[εὺς χρυσὸ)ς ἐρρύη 
διὰ τοῦ τέγους, κατειργμένην δὲ παῖδ᾽ ἐμοίχευσεν | 


This is a good case of transposition: read 


οὐκ ἀκήκοας λεγόντων, εἰπέ por, [σὺ πώπο]τε 
τῶν τραγῳδῶν ὡς γενόμενος χρυσὸς ὁ Ζεὺς ἐρρύη 


One quotation of Eur. fr. 1029 gives θεὸν δέ, εἰπέ μοι, 
ποῖον vonréov in place of θεὸν δὲ ποῖον, εἰπέ pou.—In 245 it 
is enough to write χρυσὸς ὁ Ζεύς, allowing γενόμενος to 
come first as in v. 227. The normal order would be as in 
Lucian i. 319 φασὶ δ᾽ οὖν τὸν Δία χρυσὸν γενόμενον ῥυῆναι 
διὰ τοῦ ὀρόφου ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν: and the original here may have 
been χρυσὸς ὡς ὁ Ζεὺς γενόμενος. 


247 σκόπει 
ΤΟ... ZEYCEICOIMEPOCTIPE! τὸ πλεῖστον. 


Metre will not admit M. Lefebvre’s τοῦτο Ζεὺς 


If Ζεύς is right, there is a transposition, but the meaning is 
not clear. 








MENANDER 


P, 161 
251 Read : 
καὶ βουκολεῖς pe; Ma τὸν ᾿Απόλλω, ᾽γὼ μὲν οὔ 
P makes no division between the speakers. See vv. 409, 
417, and the note on P. 51 v. 262. 


254 λήψεται μέν, μὴ φοβοῦ 
τοῦτο" θεῖον δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀκριβῶς τὸ γεγενημένον 


A foot is lacking: I suggest 


τοῦτο" θεῖον δ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἀκριβῶς (ἴσθι) or ἴσθ᾽ ἀκριβῶς, ἐστὶ 


P. 163 

261 ᾿Ανδροκλῆς ἔτη τοσαῦτα (ζῇ, τρέφει Tatda(s), πολὺ 
πράττεται, μέλας περιπατεῖ, λευκὸς οὐκ ἂν ἀποθάνοι" 
σὺ δ᾽ ΑΞΕΙΟΦΑ. TAITICAYTON οὗτός ἐστιν οὐ θεός ; 


This looks to me like σὺ δ᾽ ἀποφαυλίξεις σεαυτόν ; (or 
τι σαυτόν ;). 

He has said before, 252 χείρων οὐδὲ μικρὸν ᾿Ακρισίου 
δήπουθεν εἶ and 256 μυρίους εἰπεῖν ἔχω σοι περιπατοῦντας 
ἐν μέσῳ ὄντας ἐκ θεῶν' σὺ δ᾽ οἴει δεινὸν εἶναι τὸ γεγονός ; 


‘ There is Chaerephon, the notorious parasite, and Androcles, 
the black sheep; and do you (or ‘will you, -veis) disparage 
yourself, think meanly of yourself? Is not that fellow a god ?’ 


The Attic form, however, was ¢Aavp- (Pollux iv. 32 φλαυ- 
ρίσαι καὶ ἀποφλαυρίσαι) which was apt to be corrupted in 
MSS. to gava- (see Thesaur. ἀποφλαυρίζω); and I take the 
original reading to have been: 


EKPAYAIZEIC 
ov δ᾽ ἀποφλαυρίζεις σεαυτόν ; 


corrupted by confusion with a gloss ἐκφαυλίζεις, which was a 
word in common use (see Thesaur. s.v.). 

μέλας means deep, wicked, as in the proverb used by 
Menander /r. 239 κανθάρου μελάντερος : ἐπὶ τῶν πονηρῶν Kal 





24 RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 163 


κακοηθῶν. Plut. Mor. 12 A μὴ γεύεσθαι μελανούρων, τουτέστι 
μὴ συνδιατρίβειν μέλασιν ἀνθρώποις διὰ τὴν κακοήθειαν : and 
see Gataker on μέλαν ἦθος in Marc. Anton. iv. 28.---περιπατεῖ 
as Anaxandrides 34. 5, Dromo 1 (ii. p. 419). 


268 τἄνδον εὐτρεπῆ. TIOIHMATATIAPEMOIAL 
Κομψός εἶ. Χάριν δὲ πολλὴν πᾶσι τοῖς θεοῖς ἔχω, 
οὐδὲν εὑρηκὼς ἀληθὲς ὧν τότ᾽ ᾧμην 
We need, I think, the plural; e.g. ποιήματ᾽ (ἄττα) or (ἦν 
τὰ) παρ᾽ ἐμοί, δίηλαδή)]: and what gives occasion for this 
witticism is, I suppose, that the previous remark was [ποίει] or 
[wovod] τἄνδον εὐτρεπῆ. 


P. 165 
288 ov μὴν ταπεινῶς οὐδ᾽ ἀγεννῶς παντελῶς 
ΟΥΤ᾽ ἀλλὰ 
Μ. Lefebvre conjectures πορίευτξον τὶ]οῦτ᾽, but the construc- 
tion is inadmissible. In 293 Moschion speaks of himself as 
φέροντα μὴ παρέργως τοῦτο, and the word which exactly suits 
the meaning and exactly fills the space is περ[ιοπττέον τὶ οὔτ᾽. 


308 Οὐδέν. Τί οὖν οὕτως ἔφυγες, ἀβέλτερε ; 
EPYTECOYTWC Ρ, δὴ unmetrical transposition. 
P. 167 
πρόσεισι viv ὁ πατήρ' δεήσεται 
320 οὗτος καταμένειν μίου ἐνθ]αδί:- δεήσεται 
ἄλλως μέχρι τινός" δεῖ γάρ' εἶθ᾽, ὅταν δοκῇ, 
προἸσθήσομ᾽ αὐτῷ. πιθανὸν εἶναι δεῖ μόνον. 
ὃ μὰ τὸν Διόνυσον οὐ δύναμαι ποεῖν] ἐγώ, 
τοῦτ᾽ ἐστίν. 
320 KATAMENEINM...... SA! P: μου is wanted, as in 
337 (below) ἂν δέ pou [μὴ δέη)τ᾽, ἄνδρες, καταμένειν. 
321 AAA’ ὡς P: so in Aesch. Agam. 1316 the MS. mis- 
takes ἄλλως for ἀλλ᾽ ὡς. 322 EINAIM....NON P: whether 


the letter following €tNAI is really M, and not ΔΕ, I am inclined 
to question, but in any case the true reading must be δεῖ μόνον. 




















MENANDER 25 


FP. 167 

Moschion, as he has just explained in 278-93, does not 
really mean to leave the country, but is going to frighten his 
father by pretending that he means to do so: 

‘My father will come presently: he will beg me to remain 
here: he shall beg in vain for some time,—that he must do: 
then, when I see fit, I will yield my acquiescence. Only, 
7 must act the part convincingly. Fust what I can’t do is 
that!’ : 

In 322 the choice lies between προσθήσομ᾽ αὐτῷ ‘I will 
incline to his view’ and πεισθήσομ᾽ αὐτῷ “1 will allow myself 
to be persuaded by him’: but see Cobet WV. LZ. 409. 


337 viv πρόσεισιν. ἄν δέ μου 
μὴ δέη)τ᾽, ἄνδρες, καταμένειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποργισθεὶς ἐᾷ 
1---τουτὶ γὰρ ἄρτι παρέλιπον---τί δεῖ ποεῖν ; 
|s οὐκ ἂν ποιήσαι τοῦτ᾽" ἐὰν δέ,-- πάντα γὰρ 
οἴχε]τ᾽, εἰ γέλοιος ἔσομαι, νὴ Δί᾽, ἀνακάμπτων πάλιν. 


‘But if he does μοΐ beg me to remain, but gives way to 
anger and lets me go and welcome—for I omitted this just 
now—what am I todo? Probably he won’t do so; but if he 
does,—(well, I must stick to it,) for everything is ruined if I am 
to be ridiculous in going back upon my resolution.’ 

νὴ Δία belongs to οἴχεται πάντα, as Ῥ. 159 v. 202. οἴχεται, 
εἰ is a frequent combination, e.g. Herodas ii. 25, Eur. Supp. 
714, Phoen. 979, Lucian i. 278, iii. 265. 


325 ‘Yorepifew μοι δοκεῖς od παντελῶς [τῶν ἐνθά]δε 
πραγμάτων' εἰδὼς δ᾽ ἀκριβῶς οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ ἀκηκοώς, 
διὰ κενῆς σαυτὸν ταράττεις, ἐμὲ [δὲ 
AIAKIN...AYTON Ρ, διακινεῖς σαυτόν" ταράττεις ἐμέ ed. 
διὰ κενῆς (διακενῆς) Ὁ. 163 v. 260 and fr. 580.—This line 
should perhaps end with the οὐ φέρεις which is placed at 
the beginning of the next. 


329 OYMIA should be θυμία and should perhaps conclude 
the previous line. Cf. Eubulus 75. 7, Alexis 149. 16. 





26 RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 167 


336 ends incompletely with ONTWCI. I suppose it was 
ONTWCICOI, i.e. ὄντως ; ἴθι. 


346 "Ev6as οὐ 
μακρὰν (ἀπ)εῖναι φαίνεθ᾽, ὡς ἐμοῖ δοκεῖ. 
P gives ENOAAE 
CY .. APANEINAI 


that is, as I suppose, he wrote οὐ μακρὰν at the beginning 
of 347, and then εἶναι to make metre. 


P. 169 
348 Δάϊε πολλάϊκις μὲν ἤδη πρός μ’ ἀπήγγελκαϊς .. AYT (ἢ) 
οὐκ ἀληθές, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλαζὼν καὶ θεοῖσιν ἐχθρὸς εἶ. 
τ]ῆδε κα[ὶ νυ]νὶ πλανᾷς με. ΔΑ. κρέμασον EYOYCE 
τ]ήμερον 
C 
349 TAIOEOICIN P: rightly in schol. Ran. 280. 
The last word in 348 is perhaps πολύ: cf. 410, which looks 
like πολὺ καταψεύδεσίθ. Then Davus might say either 
κρέμασον εὐθὺς cavriy..., or more probably his growl is 
interrupted, κρέμασον εὐθὺς é[xmodav] τήμερον---- 
353 ὁ] δ᾽ ἐδίωκε 
P. 171 
383 οὐκ ἀτελής, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἰμὶ δεινοῦ δ᾽ ἐντὶ 
οἴομαι, μὰ τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν'" 
ἀτελής is unmetrical, and ἀτελής (tis) too is inadmissible. 
A clue is given by μὰ τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν, which can only be 
said negatively, whereas δεινοῦ δ᾽ is a positive, and must 


have been followed by νὴ τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν. Now what leads 


Moschion to draw this inference is the girl’s behaviour to 
him: 


381 ἀλλ᾽ ἔδειξεν μέν τι τοιοῦθ᾽- ὡς προσῆλθον ἑ]σ[ π] 
προσδραμόντ᾽ οὐκ ἔφυγεν, ἀλλὰ περιβαλοῦσ᾽ € 
οὐκ ἀηδής, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἴμ᾽ ἰδεῖν οὐδ᾽ ἐντυχεῖν, 
οἴομαι, μὰ τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν. 





MENANDER 


P. 171 

The first H, as may easily happen, was mistaken for TE: 
there is another case below in v. 440, where H appears to 
have been misread as r€.—The word beginning ENT might 
have been another adjective, but there is none that suits, 
nor any word that I can find but ἐντυχεῖν : cf. Plat. Epist. 
xiii. p. 360c οὔτε ἄχαρίς ἐστιν ἐντυχεῖν οὔτε κακοήθει ἔοικεν, 
‘not without charm of manner, ‘not unpleasant to meet, to 
have conversation with,—and in a connexion like the present 
the word is especially appropriate: Alciphron i. 29, 34, 35; 
99, an, πὸ τ᾿ 

This is what the Cyclops says in Theocr. xi. 77-9, δῆλον 
ὅτ᾽ ἐν τᾷ γᾷ κἠγών Tis φαίνομαι ἔμμεν, meaning, of course, as 
Fritzsche says, “ δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἀηδής εἰμι, ὅπου γε καὶ αἱ κόραι 
με φιλοῦσι." And v. 390 begins with οὐκ εἴμ᾽ ἀηδής. There 
the metre requires οὐκ ἀηδής εἶμι, or perhaps εἴμ᾽ is to be 
ejected (cf. P. 157 v. 192).—Cf. P. 113 v. 33-36. 


385 ‘ However,’ continues Moschion, ‘I must not boast ’:— 
ἀλλ᾽ ἑταίρ[ας ταῦτά ye,] 
τὴν δ᾽ ᾿Αδράστειαν μάλιστα νῦν AP 


‘however, that’s the way of courtesans’ (or ἑταιρῶν, or τοῦτό 
γε or ποὺ or μέν or def); Dem. 1261. 20 ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι νέων 
ἀνθρώπων. Aeschin. ii. 130 ταῦτα γὰρ τοῦ γόητος ἀνθρώπου. 
A.P.v. 306 ταῦτα μέν ἐστιν ἐρῶντος. Arr. Epictet. ii. 17 
ταῦτ᾽ ἐστι τὰ τοῦ φιλοστόργου. 


‘and now especially I must do reverence to Adrasteia.’ The 
regular word is προσκυνεῖν : Aesch. P.V. 968, Plat. Rep. 451 A, 
Dem. 781.8, Liban. Efist. 286, Alciphron i. 33. 

Or viv ἀπεῖναι βούλομαι; Lucian iii. 435 ἀπείη δ᾽ ἡ 
᾿Αδράστεια, as φθόνος δ᾽ ἀπέστω or ἀπίτω: or viv λαθεῖν as 


Herodas vi. 35. 


388 εὐτρεπὲς δ᾽ ἄριστόν ἐστιν, ἐκ δὲ 


5 See ἃ 





28 , RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 171 
399 ὡς yap ἐλθὼν εἶπα πρὸς τὴν μητέρα 
ὅτι πάρει, ph καί τι τούτων" φήσ᾽, [6 παῖς ἀἸκήκοεν ; 
“ἢ σὺ λελάληκας πρὸς αὐτὸν... 


᾽ 


ἐσ ee. μὴ ὥρας σύ ye’ 


400 MHKETI P 401 HKAICY P 


So in Menand. fr. 530. 10 we should read μὴ [ὥρας σύ ye] 


ἵκοι[ο.. τἀληθῇ λέγω, where Fritzsche conjectured μὴ ὥρασι 


δὲ, This σύ ye was commonly used in imprecations, as in 
ἐκκορηθείης σύ ye. 


409 MATONATIOAAQ) . . [ΟΥ̓ 


One expects the ending to be ᾽γὼ μὲν οὔ if there is room, 
or τουτονί: Ar. Zhesm. 748, Menand. fr. 740 quoted by Suid. 


Nai μὰ τόν. 
P. 173 
417 φλυαρεῖς πρός με. Ma τὸν ᾿Ασκληπιόν, 
οὔ, [τὰ πάντα γ᾽) ἂν ἀκούσῃς. 
Or τὸ πᾶν γ᾽ ἐάν. In 417 P marks no change of speakers. 
418 τυχὸν ἴσως οὐ βούλεται 
μίανθάνειν) σ᾽ ἐξ ἔπιδρομῆς ταῦθ᾽ ὡς ἔτυχεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀξιοῖ, 
πρότερον ἢ] εἰδέναι σ᾽, ἀκοῦσαι τὰ παρὰ σοῦ γε. 
419 M....A...1CES../IAPOMHC P The first A and | must 
each be part of N 
EIAENAIC P 


434 αὖός εἰμ᾽, οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ ταῦθ᾽, ὡς τότ᾽ ᾧμην, εὐχερῆ (Ὁ) 
oth PS 


439. ‘I have a good mind,’ says Parmenon, ‘to tell my 


master that I have caught τὸν μοιχὸν évdov—if I weren't so 
sorry for him,’ 
EIMHTETTIAN . . TACINAYTONHAEOYN 


KAKOAAIMON: OYTWA... OYTEN OYA’ ENYTIN [ 
IAWNFAPOIA’ WTHCTI.... CEMIAHMIAC 


MENANDER 


P. 173 
M. Croiset (p. 211) proposes: 


κακόδαιμον: οὔπω δ᾽ ἔφυγεν οὐδ᾽ ἐνύπνιον. 
ἰδὼν γὰρ οἶδ᾽ ὡς τῆς πίροτέρ]ας ἐπιδημίας. 
The last word of 440 is no doubt ἐνύπνιον : but in Comedy 


the scansion must, be ἐνύπνιον, and οὐδ᾽ ἐνύπνιον ἰδὼν γὰρ οἶδ᾽ 
undoubtedly is all one phrase. Eur. /. Ζ. 506 μηδ᾽ ἰδὼν ὄναρ, 


fr. 107 οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ Kar’ εὐφρόνην φίλοις ἔδειξεν αὑτόν. Plat. 


Apol. 40 D ἐπειδάν τις καθεύδων μηδ᾽ ὄναρ μηδὲν ὁρᾷ...... ὥστε 
μηδ᾽ ὄναρ ἰδεῖν. Theaet. 173 ταῦτα οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ πράττειν παρί- 
σταται αὐτοῖς. Dem. 429. 19 ἃ μηδ᾽ ὄναρ ἤλπισαν. Herodas 
i. 10 οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ ἐλθοῦσαν εἶδε. Callim. Zp. 64, Moschus iv. 18, 
and often in the Anthology and in the later Prose. Some- 
times there were variations: Apoll. Rhod. i. 290 τὸ μὲν οὐδ᾽ 
ὅσον οὐδ᾽ ἐν ὀνείρῳ ὠϊσάμην. Theocr. xx. 5 μηδ᾽ ἐν ὀνείροις. 
Automed. A. P. xi. 361 οὔποτε γευσάμενοι... ... οὐδ᾽ ἐν ὀνείρῳ 
οὐ θέρεος κριθήν (as οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ in Lucian i. 672). Plut. Mor. 
85 Ὁ οὐδ᾽ ἐν ὕπνῳ τοὺς .... ἀδεῶς ὁρῶσιν. Calanus Epist. 
οὐδ᾽ ἐν ὕπνῳ ἑορακότες τὰ ἡμέτερα ἔργα: and ἐνύπνιον was 
the true Attic for κατ᾽ ὄναρ. 

The sense should be For J have never even in dream seen 
any one (or anything) so miserable, and the metre requires οὕτω 
—v-—. I thought of οὕτω δύσποτμ' ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐνύπνιον ‘such a 
wretched state of things’ (as Lucian i. 741 δοκεῖς δέ μοι ἀλλ᾽ 
οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ ποτὲ ἀνιέναι σεαυτόν), but that is too far from the 


traces, and I conclude that the right punctuation is: 


κακοδαίμον᾽ οὕτω δίεσπ]ότην οὐδ᾽ ἐνύπνιον 

ἰδὼν γὰρ οἶδ᾽. ὦ τῆς πίικρᾶ]ς ἐπιδημίας ! 
The Η appeared to be ΓΕ, just as above (P. 172 v. 383) it 
appeared to be ΤΕ and caused AHAHC to become ATEAHC. 


443 νὴ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω TAYTO 
It is tempting to read τουτονί : see above, on v, 409. 
444 Kal τὸ κεφάλαιον οὐδέπω λογίζομαι, ---- 
τὸν δεσπότην" ἂν ἐξ ἀγροῦ θᾶττον [πάλιν] 
ἔλθῃ, ταραχὴν οἵαν ποήσει 





30 RESTORATIONS OF 
P. 173 
446 TIAN P: it must be οἵαν : cf. v. 220. 


453 Koyo τὴν θύραν. 
Ἄνθρωπε κακόδαιμον, τί βούλει . . PET 
᾿Εντεῦθεν εἰς τυχόν. 


The answer ἐντεῦθεν implies a question πόθεν ; Does the 
MS. give any trace of this or of ris πόθεν ;? 


473 οἱ παῖδες of τὰ TIEATPAY . .. πρὶν πτύσαι 
διαρπάσονται πάντα κ.. ετρωβόλους 
KAA .1C: ἔπαιζον σκατοφάγος εἶ, 


Schol. Ar. Plut. 737 ὡς εἰ ἔλεγε “ πρὶν εἰπεῖν σε πέντε 
λόγους" ἢ “πρὶν πτύσαι". Theocr. xxix. 97. Epicrates 77. 
2. 26 ἰδεῖν μὲν αὐτὴν θᾶττον ἔστιν ἣ πτύσαι. 


τὰ πέλτα is another form of τὰς πέλτας: Suid. πέλτον : 
Θρᾳκικὸν (θωρακικὸν cod.) ὅπλον : and this suggests οἱ τὰ πέλτ᾽ 
ἄγοντες (or ἔχοντες) ..... καὶ (rods) πετροβόλους : Diod. 
Sic, xviii. 51 καταπέλτας καὶ πετροβόλους. But the order is 
against this, and the MS. has ETPWBOAOYC with no τούς, 
and for KAA .IC we should have to read κλάεις; Therefore 
I would read: 

κ[αὶ TleTpwBdrovs 
καλεῖς ; Ἔπαιζον. (ds) σκατοφάγος εἶ! 


*Do you call them sixpences!’ ‘I was only in joke; how 
violent you are!’ τετρώβολος was the soldier’s pay, and has 
been used as a contemptuous term for mercenaries: Plaut. 
Mostell. 354-61 isti qui hosticas trium nummum causa 
subeunt sub falas: see Classical Review, 1898, p. 351, where I 
explained Sallust Orat. Philippi in senatu§ 7 latro cum caloni- 
bus et paucts sicarits, quorum nemo non diurna mercede uitam 
mutauerit. So in Lucian ‘Era:p. Arad. 9 (a piece which will 
be useful to compare, for it is largely founded on this play) 
the girl (iii. 304) exclaims contemptuously ὦ μισθοφόρε. 

καὶ as P. 161 v. 251 καὶ βουκολεῖς we; Ar. Vesp. 1406 καὶ 
καταγελᾷς μου; And Com. frag. adesp. 1304 Bad Bad καὶ 








MENANDER 41 


P, 173 
κυνὸς φωνὴν tes will be intelligible if divided between two 
persons: A. Bad Bat! B. καὶ κυνὸς φωνὴν ἱεῖς ; etiam cani- 
nam uocem edis? (ins or ἱεῖς, see Cobet V. L. 221). 

ὡς as e.g. Ephippus 15. 10 ὡς μικρολόγος εἶ,---σκατοφάγος 
is combined with τραχύς, αὐθέκαστος on P. 159 v. 205, with 
mikpos in frag. 825. 





Frag. 270 ἐπεπτώκειμεν in Bekk: Anecd. 97. 2 is the usual 
error for ἐπεπτώκειμεν. Cobet JV. Z. 401. 


Frag. 473: read 
ov πάνυ τι γηράσκουσιν ai τέχναι καλῶς, 
ἂν μὴ λάβωσι προστάτην ἀφιλάργυρον 


‘unless they find a ἠδεγαὶί patron’. φιλάργυρον MSS., an 
error of a not infrequent kind, e.g. Antiphanes 16 (¢)gvvaké- 
λουθος, Proclus hymn. 3. 6 (ἀ)δεισιθέων. 


Lucillius Auth. Pal. xi. 210: 
Ἄνθρακα καὶ δάφνην παραβύεται ὁ στρατιώτης 
Αὖλος, ἀποσφίγξας μήλινα λωμάτια. 
φρίσσει καὶ τὸ μάτην ἴδιον ξίφος" ἣν δέ ποτ᾽ εἴπῃς 


᾽ 


ἕ »ν»» » 4 ef ae 
ΕΡΧΟΡΤ 3 ἐξαπίνης UTTLOS EKTETATAL. 


xré. The first couplet, though so strangely phrased, I take 
to mean ‘Aulus the soldier stuffs his ears against the crackling 
of cinders and of laurel in the fire with the fringe of his mili- 
tary cloak’: schol. ψοφοδεὴς στρατιώτης, μηδὲ ψόφον τῆς 
δάφνης φέρειν δυνάμενος, ὅταν ἀνθρακιᾷ τὰ φύλλα αὐτῆς 
ἐπιτεθῇ. παραβαίνεται (sic) οὖν ὁ Αὖλος, ἵνα μὴ ἀκούσῃ τὸν 
ψόφον. Considering that many epigrams in the Anthology 
are derived from Comedy, and that the ἀλαξὼν στρατιώτης 
was a character belonging to the later Comic stage, I should 
be surprised if this variety were not the Ψοφοδεής of 
Menander. 

















i a mi ΝΗ αὐ ον 





——— 


«al 


Li 

















=) 





εἶν 








᾿ een tne ae mes : 2 Ἐὶ Je : Ξ ᾿ς Σ Ἵ ἢ ἕ ἐ " fl Ἐξ τῷ : ie ie Sea ey See 


























